Are there already weapons that banned from private ownership and use? And what is the harm to people *if* AR-15s are banned?
my heart stopped for a second when I saw this thread bumped, but it looks like it’s just the same ol’ pointless conversation y’all are being trolled, and it looks like this has been going on for many pages in a sense, I’m relieved this thread doesn’t still have life right now because another 5-10 people have just been killed carry on I guess
It has just become so common people have become numb to it. Except @StupidMoniker, he celebrates everyone's encumbered access to tools for killing and has zero empathy for those affected by another killing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ng-yuma-arizona-victims-injured-b2338623.html
We have age conditions and other conditions are firearms (go send a 13 year old to try to buy a handgun). We don't disallow specific votes we don't like or require a background check. We certainly don't require voters to have a psychiatrist and two other people sign off on their fitness to vote. This is a misreading of the argument. I did not argue that firearm regulation leads to Nazi Germany, I said that Nazi Germany used firearm registration as an aid to disarming the populace. Voting led to Nazi Germany. Where did I put 2nd Amendment rights above other rights? Was I not specifically comparing proposed regulations of the right to bear arms to the regulations applied to the other rights? If anything, it seems to me that it is those opposed to the 2nd Amendment and an individual right to bear arms that are putting all other rights above this one. I never said rights cannot be conditioned. I said that no right is conditioned on pre-clearance by a psychiatrist and two other people. We already have conditions on 2nd Amendment rights, such as prohibiting firearm possession by felons and drug addicts. I am opposing unique conditions applying to this one right that don't apply to others. No, I am not saying Hitler would have been stopped if he didn't know which Germans had guns. If I wanted to argue that, I would. I said that Nazi Germany used a gun registry as part of their gun confiscation scheme, because the first place you go when you are confiscating guns is to the registered owner's house. They may or may not still have them, but that is the first place you check. How does the registry help save America? The rebels wouldn't have access to the registry, so I don't see how it would help them organize. I do agree that attempting to take lawful gun owners weapons is a bad idea that could result in violence. I compared all states, each of which tends to have both rural and urban areas. Since I was discussing murders, of course I looked at intentional homicides. Why would I be comparing numbers that include suicide or accident? My concern is murders. I don't think it will materially increase the difficulty for criminals to obtain guns, because we already have a registration requirement in California and our criminals have no difficulty obtaining guns. It isn't that I am neglecting a fact, I am disputing you calling it a fact. In California, yes. Nationwide, no (though some require special permission and taxation). Their rights would be more limited, and they would have less access to the most popular centerfire rifle in the United States. Arguably, there are equally effective platforms that they could still have if ONLY AR-15s were banned (comparing the relative utility of other platforms, such as an AK-74, to the AR-15 is beyond the scope of this conversation), but I would suspect that there would be more blanket bans (like proposed assault weapons bans) that leave the law abiding citizens more under armed than those who may attack them.
So your concern about a gun registry is that if America falls to tyrants, in that event, people will lose their guns. I think that's is a small risk to take given the number of lives that can be saved. Fact is that gun registries at a local level have reduced crime. You are looking at intentional homicides - NH is such a small state and population that when you get to that number the result becomes statitically flawed as the sample size gets too low. Gun deaths is a bigger number. If you want to look at homicides you need to look over a much larger period of time to compensate for the small sample size of NH - you maybe looking at one year's statistical abberation. Gun registry is just one component of stopping the illegal proliferation of guns. But brass tacks - Callifornia has lower gun crime that nearly every other red state. If you want to save gun ownership, then the gun crowd is going to have to do more to fight against what's happening than just thoughts and prayers and claiming it's just a mental health issue that has nothing to do with guns.
People like @StupidMoniker really have Hollywood thriller or epic like mindset on how tyrannical govts form and operate. This notion that tyrincal govts will hunt those that are on a gin registry is abrisrd and provides not pragmatic usefulness to a entity that wants to maintain authorarian rule. An authoritarian govt is more likely to use a list of people that b****ed about capitalism or class warfare for the past decade on social media as potential targets to attack than do anything remotely useful with a list of people that have firearms.
So... there are reasonable limitations nationwide on the types of weapons an individual can own and use? And if AR-15s and other similar "platforms" (weapons) are banned... what are "law-abiding citizens" being under-armed than those attacking them? Who or what is attacking citizens with weapons like AK-15s and similar weapons?
I don't think gun registries save lives. I would prefer dangerous freedom. [/quote]Fact is that gun registries at a local level have reduced crime.[/quote] I have seen no evidence of this. There are over one million people in New Hampshire. I don't know of any stat for which that would be too small a sample size. But sure, happy to look at a longer time frame. New Hampshire Murder/Homicide Rate 1979-2018 | MacroTrends Since from 1979-2018 (which is the first over time comparison I could find, I didn't select those dates) New Hampshire's murder rate peaked in 1991 at 3.62/100,000 and has been under 2 per 100,000 every year from 1994 on. California Murder/Homicide Rate 1979-2018 | MacroTrends California's rate peaked in 1980 at 14.49/100,000, has never been below 4.38 and has never been lower than New Hampshire's (obviously, since the highest rate in New Hampshire was lower than the lowest rate in California. If gun control laws were the primary determining factor in safety, why would New Hampshire have so much lower a murder rate than California? Shouldn't all the guns there be causing havoc? Maybe it has something to do with the people, instead of the guns. Gun registries have been used in gun confiscations. That isn't a Hollywood notion, that is historical fact. That probably depends on the ascendant flavor of authoritarianism. I'm sure Communist authoritarians are not going to round up all the people that b****ed about capitalism and class warfare and send them to the gulags, that would be their base of support. You can decide for yourself whether they are reasonable or not. You need a federal background check and a tax stamp to have an automatic weapon, a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or a suppressor. I happen to think those are unreasonable restrictions, but to each his own. Criminals with illegal weapons.
I remember seeing this interview and thinking to myself "is it wrong that I just don't believe this guy?" Especially the part about removing the dead woman who was covering her child.
Three in critical condition + one random mom dead in Dallas, but she was just a shady person doing shady things... like going to pick up her daughter's prom dress. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas-shooting-ana-moreno-killed-prom-dress/
I’ll make a more detailed response when I have time but will state again mass firearm confiscation is very unlikely to happen in this country. People pushing it is either fear mongering or aspirational thinking on the Left.
I have no words According to a statement from Keene Police, the shooting happened at about 9:40 p.m. Saturday. That's when Keene Police Chief James Kidd said Davis confronted a customer, identified as 20-year-old Angel Gomez, for urinating in the parking lot. The confrontation turned physical and a 12-year-old who was in Gomez’s car pulled out an assault rifle and fired six rounds at Davis, Kidd said.
FARMINGTON, N.M. -- At least three people were killed and several others were wounded Monday, including two police officers, in a northwestern New Mexico community before law enforcement fatally shot the 18-year-old suspect, authorities said. The shootings occurred at around 11 a.m. in Farmington, a city of about 50,000 people that serves as a modern-day trading post to the adjacent Navajo Nation reservation and is a supply line and bedroom community to the region's oil and natural gas industry. https://abc7.com/shooting-farmington-nm-new-mexico-active-shooter-mass-in-nm-today/13251153/
Your view of what qualifies the Left is very narrow and not agreed to by even many who call themselves on the Left. But yes there are those who on the political spectrum would be on the Left who have called for gun confiscation.
I don't think it's narrow. The left really doesn't have gun politics high on their list. The left right now is b****ing about homeless encampments being raided by cops, Cop City in Atlanta and rent prices being hikes up from cartel like practices.
I suppose then AOC isn’t actually a Leftist. Your defense of who and what is “the Left” sounds a lot like “no true Scotsman.”
maybe the TYT part of the Democratic party is b*tching about those things, I don’t see it from the majority of the left
